When reading threads like this, it always amazes me to see the things people want outlawed. Am I the only one that thinks it's strange that some people want pot legalized, but cell phones outlawed?

Did you ever think that's because people using cell phones while driving is like a million times more dangerous than smoking pot is?

Sure.

I'm fascinated by your logic. It seems if something inconveniences or impacts you in a negative way, you want more regulations to control it. Things like cell phones and semi trucks. For things you enjoy, you want less regulation. I'm curious how far this logic goes.

Isn't that the way it is for pretty much everyone? If something impacts you in a negative way, are you going to be for or against it?

When reading threads like this, it always amazes me to see the things people want outlawed. Am I the only one that thinks it's strange that some people want pot legalized, but cell phones outlawed?

Did you ever think that's because people using cell phones while driving is like a million times more dangerous than smoking pot is?

Sure.

I'm fascinated by your logic. It seems if something inconveniences or impacts you in a negative way, you want more regulations to control it. Things like cell phones and semi trucks. For things you enjoy, you want less regulation. I'm curious how far this logic goes.

Isn't that the way it is for pretty much everyone? If something impacts you in a negative way, are you going to be for or against it?

A few nights ago, I burnt the roof of my mouth on hot pizza. I don't want regulations on the temperature that pizza can be served. There are lots of other things I don't approve of, but I don't want them regulated. Conversely, there are things I do, that a lot of people don't approve of. Where does it stop? If you regulate everything you disapprove, and the next guy does the same, what's left?

_________________________
On the internet, people can be anything they want. Why do so many choose to be stupid?

A few nights ago, I burnt the roof of my mouth on hot pizza. I don't want regulations on the temperature that pizza can be served. There are lots of other things I don't approve of, but I don't want them regulated. Conversely, there are things I do, that a lot of people don't approve of. Where does it stop? If you regulate everything you disapprove, and the next guy does the same, what's left?

I see your point, but let's take it the other direction for a moment. Let's say nothing is done about the problem because we don't like big brother over-regulating things. The problem just continues getting worse and worse until pretty soon it isn't safe to be on the roads at all anymore...that's no good either...

I see your point, but let's take it the other direction for a moment. Let's say nothing is done about the problem because we don't like big brother over-regulating things. The problem just continues getting worse and worse until pretty soon it isn't safe to be on the roads at all anymore...that's no good either...

You fail to realize, though, that many things have a way of self regulating themselves. We don't need any more laws, we have lawyers. People getting nailed in civil lawsuits, insurance carriers getting walloped between the eyes in civil lawsuits, do far more to regulate bad behavior than government and it "feel good" "we are here to help" mindset and those that buy into it.

Even speed limits, in many instances, were established on non urban roads based on the average speed the public runs at on those roads. That is fact. Check with any state Dept of Transportation. Now it is true, that political events have a play, but the way speed limits were established for decades was based on how fast the general public operated on a stretch of road. The average speed was shown to be the balance the public was willing to do to maintain safety and speed. Read up the history on this. The public determined the best speed limit for a stretch of road. Not some dweeb in a DOT cubicle.

It was not more laws restricting smoking that caused the greatest decrease in smoking. Nor was it the almost insane taxing on the products. More than anything, it was public opinion that has had the largest effect on reduction in number of active smokers. It just ain't "cool' anymore in the general public eyes. Sure, there will always be a subculture.

It was not seat belt laws that have increased the percentage of seat belt use by motorists, it has primarily been due to a relentless campaign of public awareness and suggestion. Any LEO should be able to figure that out. The OEM's stress the safety features, air bags, seat belts in their vehicles complete with warning lights and buzzers. It is more in the forefront of people's thinking and as a result, there is a higher percentage than ever of seat belt usage.

It is just too narrow minded, short sighted, and myopic to think that the best solution is new laws. Already, among commercial truck drivers, it is not the risk of $2750 fines that is causing a greater awareness and reduction of hand operated cell phone and texting abuse, it is the brow beating by other drivers that goes on over the CB that has a greater effect. Truckers, by nature, tend to have a roque streak in them. But they do have an awareness of being considered a low life in the eyes of other truckers. There is not a day goes by, that while operating my semi truck, I hear many instances of a group of drivers brow beating on another driver for not paying attention and talking on a cell phone or looking at some message.

Public awareness, negative stereotypes portrayed on television, active promotion by OEM's of the hand's free blue tooth features in the new vehicles, etc, etc, has more of an effect of curbing negative behavior than some threat from government. It is easier and more effective to attract flies with honey than vinegar. Cold, rigid laws do nothing but make criminals of honest citizens. And they rarely take into account the gray areas.... like the motorist using their cell phone while driving to call in a dangerous driver that may be putting others at risk. A nearby LEO may not have seen the bad driver, only the driver on the cell phone and so they go after that individual, wasting valuable time that could have been used going after the idiot.

_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Sorry TiredTrucker, I just don't see this whole cell phone use while driving thing getting any better unless 1) laws are passed with stiff enough penalties (and they are enforced) to deter such use or 2) laws are passed that force cell phone manufacturers to install a device in every cell phone that makes them unusable while in a vehicle with the ignition turned on. Today's society has become so self-centered and instilled with a sense of entitlement that people believe they can do whatever they feel like doing, everyone else be darned. I see it every time I drive...people swerving all over the road, not using their turn signals, speeding up, slowing down for no apparent reason, all because they're doing something with their cell phone...people speeding and tailgating because they think they're entitled to drive as fast as they want...slow drivers parked in the far left lane on the highways and refusing to move right even though they're driving slower than everyone else, holding up faster moving traffic and acting like they are totally unaware of the situation, or they're fully aware and are just being a jerk...in spite of all the drivers around these people who despise this type of behavior, these problems continue to get worse, not better...I just don't see your theory curing these problems...

The "problem" is your approach relies on subjective judgement. Not saying I disagree with your notion. I understand why we get more specific laws that leave out such judgements. Speed can be measured, so we see traffic enforcement focused far more on speeding than lane usage and so forth. Why? Because the officer can testify that he observed the vehicle operating at 75 mph. Likewise, instead of testifying inattentive driving, he can testify he observed the motorist using her cell phone. No subjective call needed.

Originally Posted By: Garak

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

But my contention has always been, there have been laws on the books for decades against distracted driving.

That's quite true, but one also has to look at the ease in obtaining convictions (and in being able to make a defence). Does using a cell phone while driving automatically mean someone is driving "without due care and attention" as per this jurisdiction's wording for distracted driving? On the other hand, using a cell phone while driving is contrary to the law against using a cell phone while driving - end of discussion.

I don't like to see a bunch of "extra" laws, either, but if one is really picky, one could wipe out 95% of every jurisdiction's traffic code and charge just about everything as driving without due care and attention. If you run a red light, you're either driving intentionally dangerously (dangerous driving) or you weren't paying attention. Same goes for failing to signal, tailgaiting, unsafe loads, failure to yield. So, tear up the traffic code and have four offences: Dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention, impaired driving, and speeding. All else is really fluff, isn't it? But, those who would wish to simplify things to such a point should be relegated to prosecuting offences.

Sorry TiredTrucker, I just don't see this whole cell phone use while driving thing getting any better unless 1) laws are passed with stiff enough penalties (and they are enforced) to deter such use or 2) laws are passed that force cell phone manufacturers to install a device in every cell phone that makes them unusable while in a vehicle with the ignition turned on. Today's society has become so self-centered and instilled with a sense of entitlement that people believe they can do whatever they feel like doing, everyone else be darned. I see it every time I drive...people swerving all over the road, not using their turn signals, speeding up, slowing down for no apparent reason, all because they're doing something with their cell phone...people speeding and tailgating because they think they're entitled to drive as fast as they want...slow drivers parked in the far left lane on the highways and refusing to move right even though they're driving slower than everyone else, holding up faster moving traffic and acting like they are totally unaware of the situation, or they're fully aware and are just being a jerk...in spite of all the drivers around these people who despise this type of behavior, these problems continue to get worse, not better...I just don't see your theory curing these problems...

If you see people speeding, not signaling, and tailgating, which is against the law, why would more laws stop these people from driving poorly? If a person feels entitled, no law will change that behavior. Your second point about disabling cell phones while the ignition is on will never work. If I'm driving with my wife, is there any reason she can't make a call?

_________________________
On the internet, people can be anything they want. Why do so many choose to be stupid?

If you see people speeding, not signaling, and tailgating, which is against the law, why would more laws stop these people from driving poorly? If a person feels entitled, no law will change that behavior. Your second point about disabling cell phones while the ignition is on will never work. If I'm driving with my wife, is there any reason she can't make a call?

In the cases where laws already prohibit a certain type of driving, I'm not advocating more laws, but simply enforcement of existing ones. In the case of disabling phones while in the vehicle with the ignition on, what's more important, making roads safer by ensuring that people can't use the phones while they're driving, or passengers in the vehicle being able to use them? It's called prioritizing...

Here in NJ Police officers and other emergency personel can talk on their cell while driving.. Personally driving while on a cell is or can be distracting i don't usually do it but i have done it a few times.

That was my whole point - we can't have everything too subjective. Hence, a cell phone law does have a point.

The law should just require cell phone jammers as standard equipment in all new vehicles. Then I'd be happy.

I'd rather see the jammers installed on the phones...it would take way too long to get rid of all of the older vehicles that don't have them....cell phones on the other hand are constantly being replaced so the conversion would take a lot less time...